Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Erowind

Posted 27 August 2018 - 10:12 AM

I suspect this will end up driving people away from big sites like reddit/facebook/twitter/youtube etc. and onto places which are small enough that policing them becomes impractical.

Sites will then have to sort of walk a tightrope between being small enough that they don't have to basically ban all image posts and links, and being large enough to make money.

Best case scenario is they are adding this so they can​ take down anything they want, then they will use it on specific occasions, but mostly ignore it.

We should organise internet boycotts of any TV show that actually tries to prevent people using images from it as memes, and have everyone pirate that TV show instead.

Eventually they will stop trying to press charges and things can go back to normal.

Relying on consumerists to boycott anything is an uphill battle. EA and Ubisoft still sell despite being completely evil even by most capitalists standards. I'm not saying you're wrong or that we shouldn't try, just that it's going to be hard to reach the increasingly apolitical masses.

I am he as you are he as you are me, And we are all together, See how they run like pigs from a gun, See how they fly, I'm crying, Sitting on a corn flake, Waiting for the van to come, Corporation T-shirt, stupid bloody Tuesday, Man you've been a naughty boy, You let your face grow long, I am the egg man, They are the egg men, I am the walrus, Goo goo g'joob, Mr. City policeman sitting, Pretty little policemen in a row, See how they fly like Lucy in the sky, See how they run, I'm crying, I'm crying, I'm crying, I'm crying, Yellow matter custard, Dripping from a dead dog's eye, Crabalocker fishwife, pornographic priestess, Boy, you've been a naughty girl, You let your knickers down, I am the egg man, They are the egg men, I am the walrus, Goo goo g'joob, Sitting in an English garden, Waiting for the sun, If the sun don't come you get a tan, From standing in the English rain, I am the egg man (How do you do sir?), They are the egg men (The man maintains a fortune), I am the walrus, Goo goo g'joob, goo goo goo g'joob, Expert, texpert choking smokers, Don't you think the joker laughs at you (Ho ho ho, hee hee hee, hah hah hah), See how they smile like pigs in a sty, See how they snide, I'm crying, Semolina Pilchard, Climbing up the Eiffel tower, Elementary penguin singing Hare Krishna, Man, you should have seen them kicking Edgar Allen Poe

Yuli Ban

Posted 13 September 2018 - 12:10 AM

Funny as hell, it still wouldn't have made any difference if the UK remained in the EU or not because this is going to affect the entirety of the internet anyway.

Right as net neutrality is repealed stateside at that, so if you want to post any of those dank memes, you've got to purchase a license or else the website will load 80% more slowly and you can only view pre-approved public access memes. Because you know we're going to follow with our own version of this.

How many memes do you want, sir? You can pay $199 for 500 memes.

"Fuck you, I'll create my own meme and make it free."

Lolnope, sorry bud, you're gonna have to sell your meme to a publisher and they'll figure out pricing and rights if you want to spread it on the Internet. YouTube and Twitter won't host your memes without copyrights attached, which means that Google will eventually stop list websites/forums/social media sites that also violates this rule. Other search engines that archive your site can be sued, so guess who's not searchable anymore if even one user posts a copyrighted meme?

Here that, Will? You might have to delete the forum anyway come January no matter what because of all those memes that have been posted here over the years. No one had the right to post them without the creators' consent. Otherwise if you think forum traffic is slow now, you haven't seen the sheer corpse someone tried to call "traffic" you'll have when Google spots all those illegal memes infesting the place. Unless they're grandfathered in, of course. But what fun is that?

On one hand, what's wrong with making a profit with this some might ask. On the other hand, everything worked perfectly fine the way it is now so what's wrong with not making a profit with it? If you want to profit off memes, you already can.

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.

Yuli Ban

Posted 13 September 2018 - 12:42 AM

Yuli Ban

Born Again Singularitarian

Moderators

20,619 posts

LocationNew Orleans, LA

Article 13 will force the web to be run like YouTube: mindless totalitarian botscripts that siterunners will have to use to avoid fines. They will search for content IDs as they're uploaded and immediately hit you with a "Content Not Valid" if you haven't procured the proper usage rights. Content ID on YouTube still does not distinguish between actual infringement and fair use. To give you an example, an artist released a song back in 2006 or 2007. A popular video used that song a few weeks ago. What did YouTube's bots do? Flagged the originalvideo and got it removed for violating copyright. Because apparently that artist isn't just a pirate but also a time traveler, going back in time just to violate fair use policies. I'm also reminded of when Family Guy used an uploader's gameplay footage, resulting in the original footage being removed from YouTube for violating copyright.

So it really doesn't even matter if you're the creator since the bots will default towards the wealthier, more influential user unless said influential user runs afoul of corporate policies. Then you both get hit.

Yeah, you create a meme and some neo-Nazis use it for some ultra-reactionary shit somewhere else on the Web? Journalists pick up on this and now all instances of that meme are removed. Just check content ID, bro, you have to go through that anyway.

Just like how Radiohead and the Beatles removed all of their non-music videos from YouTube, a creator of a popular meme could demand that his or her content is no longer allowed to be used online. Alt-right loves Pepe the Frog? Matt Furie uses his rights to get literally every Pepe on the internet removed via copyright strikes; noncompliant sites are no longer reachable by Google. Wanna sue Google over this? Too bad; it's in the contracts. Wanna start your own search engine to get around it? No, you still have to obey the law. Just like how you can't just start your own record store to sell CDs and records without paying the artists and publishers their royalties unless it's a pirate store.

All this does is promote and exacerbate piracy.

Sciencerocks, Enda Kurina and BasilBerylium like this

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.

Yuli Ban

Posted 13 September 2018 - 12:56 AM

Yuli Ban

Born Again Singularitarian

Moderators

20,619 posts

LocationNew Orleans, LA

EU just killed its self.

If you seriously believe this, I have some very awful news for you: this is going to trigger a race to the bottom across the internet in general. EU or no EU, we're still going to see the China, Russia, USA, India, etc. try this out. I'm almost surprised China hasn't already tried something like this, but their internet is already so censored that they probably don't need to.

Hell, I can already see how easily many (older) libertarians stateside can be pushed into supporting it— just frame it as supporting the rights of creators to profit off their content. After all, we do have copyrights and trademarks for a reason, so what makes a meme different from a book or a song?

As for Article 11, what's wrong with Google's private right to demand more payment in return for making your site searchable? It's not your right to be searched; it's their right to let you be searchable! Pay them for extra ad space, and you'll be rewarded, just like how it works in real life!

(Of course, this only goes for when conservative/libertarian sites aren't in the crosshairs; otherwise, it's "liberal censorship of freedom of speech").

MURICA.

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.

Yuli Ban

Posted 13 September 2018 - 01:05 AM

Yuli Ban

Born Again Singularitarian

Moderators

20,619 posts

LocationNew Orleans, LA

What is the directive?

The Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market 2016/0280(COD) is a proposed European Union directive with the stated goal to harmonise aspects of copyright law in the Digital Single Market of the European Union. It is an attempt to adjust copyright law for the Internet by providing additional protection to rightsholders. The European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs approved the proposal on 20 June 2018, with further voting by the entire parliament required before it becomes law.

What is article 11?

This article is meant to extend provisions that so far exist to protect creatives to news publishers. Under the proposal, using a 'snippet' with headline, thumbnail picture and short excerpt would require a (paid) license - as would media monitoring services, fact-checking services and bloggers. This is directed at Google and Facebook which are generating a lot of traffic with these links "for free".

What is article 13?

This article says that Internet platforms hosting “large amounts” of user-uploaded content should take measures, such as the use of "effective content recognition technologies", to prevent copyright infringement. Those technologies should be "appropriate and proportionate".
Activists fear that these content recognition technologies, which they dub "censorship machines", will often overshoot and automatically remove lawful adaptations such as memes (oh no, not the memes!), limit freedom of speech, and will create extra barriers for start-ups using user-uploaded content.

kjaggard

Posted 13 September 2018 - 01:09 AM

kjaggard

Artificer

Moderators

2,987 posts

Locationwhere fanciful imaginings and hard won knowledge meet to genesis the future.

this isn't just memes. Linking to things, parody, reviews, fair use, remixes, and a lot more are likely to fall prey. and on top of it the sites that allow posts of such are at risk of punishment, and thus need to implement impossible systems to avoid those punishments nearly hourly. So you can expect that some will just close up shop, some will start charging for content creation, some will use algorithms that will take down 12 channels by mistake for every one who actually uses a frame from some movie or a sound effect clipped from a TV show. This sort of thing legitimately makes everything that's consumable media owned by somebody and contracts and fees need to be gone through to use or refer to everything. It's idiotic.

Sciencerocks and Enda Kurina like this

Live content within small means. Seek elegance rather than luxury, Grace over fashion and wealth over riches.Listen to clouds and mountains, children and sages. Act bravely, think boldly.Await occasions, never make haste. Find wonder and awe, by experiencing the everyday.

Yuli Ban

Posted 13 September 2018 - 01:12 AM

Yuli Ban

Born Again Singularitarian

Moderators

20,619 posts

LocationNew Orleans, LA

this isn't just memes. Linking to things, parody, reviews, fair use, remixes, and a lot more are likely to fall prey. and on top of it the sites that allow posts of such are at risk of punishment, and thus need to implement impossible systems to avoid those punishments nearly hourly. So you can expect that some will just close up shop, some will start charging for content creation, some will use algorithms that will take down 12 channels by mistake for every one who actually uses a frame from some movie or a sound effect clipped from a TV show. This sort of thing legitimately makes everything that's consumable media owned by somebody and contracts and fees need to be gone through to use or refer to everything. It's idiotic.

It's not just idiotic,

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.

Yuli Ban

Posted 13 September 2018 - 01:28 AM

Yuli Ban

Born Again Singularitarian

Moderators

20,619 posts

LocationNew Orleans, LA

This will simply never work. Memes are so central, fundamental and ubiquitous, banning them would trigger the biggest online rebellion in the Internet's history. People from all sides of the political spectrum would be united, the EU and corporate websites would be hacked by Anonymous, etc.

Maybe if it were still the early 2010s, but surely we enlightened minds of the FutureTimeline have functional neurons that recall all that jizz we spilled over things like Google DeepMind, RankBrain, Google Brain, and other such AI networks purchased by the big tech companies...? Those AIs that are growing creepily capable of making you assume they might be a person, drawing from Big Data to put together realistic responses, and able to not so easily be fooled by anti-bot measures.
Yes, it would trigger rebellion, but the big boys can actually fight back now. You rebel? Whoops, no longer searchable. Now you're "terrorist" content.

And here's the thing: weaponized autism is pretty powerful, but even the most weaponized autist has to go to sleep, take a shit, and jerk off to some anime. Bots don't. Sooner or later, people will grow apathetic. Either that will happen first, or the passionate person will grow sleepy and his or her body will start shutting down for the night. When it's just two easily inflamed and impassioned sides of humans, that's one thing. But bots will counter you 24/7 with the same level of stamina you can scarcely match during your best hours. You could try to promote an underground web, but bots will find you sooner or later.

And that doesn't even begin to bring up political polarization. As I mentioned, after 2016, it proved possible to get many people on the side of these measures. Hell, if you search "Anonymous" on YouTube right now, virtually every video is some pro-Christian alt-right propaganda. All you need is to get a few bots to infiltrate and cause just a tiny bit of disorder on the opposing side, drive a wedge in the issues, and split the opposition.

People will adapt to the new ugly normal before they turn to an alternative unless there's a coordinated effort right now to create an alternative web. But there won't be. The alt-right will jump the gun and try to turn it into a paleoconservative-friendly network ahead of time so the more left-leaning dissidents won't bother with it. And if the left and center does try to create something new, the alt-right and far-right will just claim it's no different from the Old Web and do their best to smear it.

Enda Kurina and Alislaws like this

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.

Despite ringing denunciations from small EU tech businesses, giant EU entertainment companies, artists' groups, technical experts, and human rights experts, and the largest body of concerned citizens in EU history, the EU has concluded its "trilogues" on the new Copyright Directive, striking a deal that—amazingly—is worse than any in the Directive's sordid history.Under the final text, any online community, platform or service that has existed for three or more years, or is making €10,000,001/year or more, is responsible for ensuring that no user ever posts anything that infringes copyright, even momentarily. This is impossible, and the closest any service can come to it is spending hundreds of millions of euros to develop automated copyright filters. Those filters will subject all communications of every European to interception and arbitrary censorship if a black-box algorithm decides their text, pictures, sounds or videos are a match for a known copyrighted work. They are a gift to fraudsters and criminals, to say nothing of censors, both government and private.
These filters are unaffordable by all but the largest tech companies, all based in the USA, and the only way Europe's homegrown tech sector can avoid the obligation to deploy them is to stay under ten million euros per year in revenue, and also shut down after three years.

It's like a blatant buy-out of the European internet by American megacorporations.

Article 11, which allows news sites to decide who can link to their stories and charge for permission to do so, has also been worsened. The final text clarifies that any link that contains more than "single words or very short extracts" from a news story must be licensed, with no exceptions for noncommercial users, nonprofit projects, or even personal websites with ads or other income sources, no matter how small.

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.